(CNS): In the face of a law suit filed by the premier over an opinion piece published in May, Cayman News Service received so many offers from the community to help fight the legal challenge that it has opened an account to manage the defence fund so that those who are both willing and able to pitch in with the costs can do so. Cayman’s former auditor general, Dan Duguay, will be overseeing the fund to ensure all the contributions made by supporters will be used to pay legal expenses and that the account is fully transparent. CNS has now retained a lawyer to defend the suit as it prepares to take on the premier in the courts.

On 3 October McKeeva Bush filed suit against CNS owner Nicky Watson and CNS reporter Wendy Ledger over the publication of a Viewpoint about free speech by a regular CNS contributor who writes under the pen name “Bean Counter”. Bush has claimed the opinion piece was defamatory and is seeking damages as a result of its publication. The premier also filed suits on the same day against Randy Merren and Hurley’s Entertainment, the owner of the local radio station Rooster, and Daphne Orrett (a.k.a. Aunt Sookie) for comments broadcast on the morning call-in show CrossTalk.

When Bush first threatened Watson and Ledger with legal action in June, Watson responded to the premier with a comprehensive letter setting out why Bean Counter’s article was ‘fair comment’ and why the news site had decided not to publish an apology, among other demands. However, the premier continued with his action and filed suit on 3 October in the Grand Court.

Watson and Ledger have both said they will be contesting the action as it is important to defend the rights of people to criticise their government and leaders without fear.

“We have been very touched by the response from members of the community and the many words of encouragement and support from so many diverse quarters,” said Watson. “Since the suit was filed, many people have expressed their appreciation of CNS, not only for the bolder editorial style than they have been used to but also for the platform it provides for free speech to flourish in these islands.

“Wendy and I honestly feel that we are contributing to the maturing of politics in the Cayman Islands by supporting a vibrant forum for discussion about current affairs and a place to express both praise and dissatisfaction in our elected representatives. It is gratifying that others feel the same way and we want to assure CNS readers that we intend to continue throughout this rather turbulent period in the history of this country, and beyond.”

CNS has retained James Kennedy of Samson & McGrath to defend against the suit. As a very small and relatively new media house (CNS was launchedin March 2008) and given the cost of legal action, Watson has set up an account that will allow people to contribute to the defence, which will be managed by the former auditor general.

“I am delighted to help CNS in this endeavour,” Duguay said “I am sure that I agree with most Caymanians that it is vitally important that we all help ensure a strong and vibrant press. As a former auditor general, I am a great advocate of transparency and accountability in public activities. A strong Auditor General's Office (which Cayman has) helps to promote these objectives. However, they must partner with a strong press to ensure that the public is informed and aware of public activities. I have always admired CNS for their strong stance regarding Cayman politics.

“Wendy and Nicky have agreed that I will be able to review all expenditures from this fund and no funds will be expended without my agreement. Funds contributed for this purpose will be used only to defend CNS from Mr Bush's lawsuit. We will be fully transparent and provide an accounting to all Caymanians, whether you contributed or not, as to how CNS spent any funds donated to them. Of course, all donations will be anonymous and we will not reveal the identity of any donors,” he explained, noting that any donated funds left in the account after the suit was won, lost or dropped would be given in an even split to the Pines Retirement Home and the Cayman Islands Crisis Centre.

Grateful to the former AG for his support and happy that an auditor of his calibre and integrity was willing to help, Watson said she hoped that the wider community would agree that, despite the obvious expense such a courtroom battle could create, it was important to take a stand.

“We believe that defending this case is the right thing to do for the sake of all our readers and the wider public, and we hope that those who agree with us and are able to do so will support us. It goes without saying that all financial contributions are gratefully recieved but just a few kind words to let us know that people are behind us also mean a great deal,” Watson said.

I dont wish bad for anyone and sometimes we must remember that "words are wind, but blow is unkind": even though we have recently been praising those passing blows.

I have commented on issues that were not defaming, deragatory or untruth; some are dealing with the leader of the opposition others about the member from North Side, however CNS refuse to post, but while reading the posting on the topics I come across , comments that CNS allow -one would wonder how did they allowed it; so I have to asked myself are they bias. I am not the only person who have experienced it.

CNS: There will alsways be a perception of bias because people only know when I delete their comments or those of their friends. Because McKeeva Bush and the UDP are in power, the majority of comments are about them, and therefore the majority of deleted comments are also about them.

During the last elections we were labeled a UDP blog by certain PPM supporters and I was asked, in all seriousness, if Mr Bush owned CNS.

We do appreciate your thoughts on the legal action and your contribution to the discussion.

In reply to 10.28 if that is what you firmly believe then that is your right BUT having said that then the rights of our MLA's to be allowed to say what they want about anyone and hide behind Palimentary Privilege(I thinks thats what is called)should be taken away so that they can get on with the work we are paying them to do knowing that what they say can and will be used against them.Lets see how they feel when the shoe is on the other foot.

In reply to 17:23 you are so right I wonder what you would do if you were wearing the shoe and somebody stepped on your corn, it’s all relative isn’t it. And don’t forget innocent until proven guilty hey hey hey

CNS fabricates the news and fabricates perceptions, then its only fair you fabricate your own fund for the fabrications you spew out there regularly. Hopefully the courts will rule on "accountability" which this blog seems to operate without any.

I would also be very interested to see just how much the PPM will support your fund. I'm sure the AG will be completely transparent about this…………….

Thumbs down aways, the news and comments of this website is as predictable as the stench coming from mount trashmore.

And you are a puppet, that is the Premier's puppet. CNS doesn't fabricate, they print the story and the people post their opinions, their opinions and only their opinions, not like yourself who is being told on what to say……I guess if you don't agree with the PRemier you won't get your washing machine or bonus cheque this year for a vote….

Here's a little article from the Canadian media about a recent court case involving defamation on social media networks and blogs. Interesting reading…..

The Ontario Superior Court recently decided that a blog comment must pass a higher threshold before it's considered defamatory than statements made in other places.

Defamation is the communication to third parties of a false statement that tends to injure the reputation of an individual. Slander is oral defamation. Libel is written defamation.

The reasoning in the case of Baglow v. Smith includes the thought that an ongoing blogging thread is akin to a debate. The person who felt wronged by a comment has an opportunity to reply to set the record straight and lessen the impact on his reputation of the original statement.

That makes sense if the two parties were already both involved in the online banter. But might be less applicable if the aggrieved party had not been involved in the debate prior to the comment.

Another thought was that given the nature of the online forum, readers would be less likely to interpret comments such as in this case — which suggested the person wasa Taliban supporter — as being intended to be factual.

It probably didn't help the complainant's case that he had made some derogatory comments of his own in the comment thread. To determine if a statement is defamatory, it must be looked at in the context of the conversation or publication as a whole, and not as an isolated statement.

But this decision doesn't mean the Internet is a defamation- free zone and that one can say whatever one wants with impunity. It just means the analysis as to whether particular comments on the Internet amount to defamation considers the nature of the medium. That makes sense, as defamation is about what the public thinks as a result of the comment.

Earlier defamation decisions about material posted on the Internet have awarded higher damage awards than if it had been published on paper. The rationale is there is a broader distribution of the comment.

So we could be in the position where a defamatory comment in an article on the Internet or in a blog post or on some form of social media might have a risk of a higher damage award — but the threshold for being considered defamatory in the first place is higher. In other words, more potential damages, but less risk of being found defamatory in the first place.

And the risk of a comment being considered defamatory might be less if discussion ensues, especially if the aggrieved party is involved in the discussions.

The bottom line — if someone makes a comment online about you that you think might affect your reputation, you should think carefully about what to do about it.

On the one hand, it might not attract enough attention to do any real harm, and the wrong reaction might just bring more attention to it. On the other hand, its online nature gives the opportunity for a measured, rational reply to set the record straight.

David Canton is a business lawyer and trade-mark agent with a technology focus at Harrison Pensa LLP. This article, written with the assistance of Elikem Baeta, contains general comments only, not legal advice. Contact David at 519-661-6776 or http://www.canton.elegal.ca.

Just glancing thru the "thumbs-upand thumbs down" icons at the end of each entry, it seems they pretty much mirror the Cayman Compass' newspaper poll asking how many people would vote for the UDP if the elections were held now – LESS THAN 15%.

Its very interesting to see most people who post here actually believe we have the Freedom of Speech and Freedom to gather in the Cayman Islands. I hope someone is reading their constitution and the local laws or they may be surprised.

Section 11 of the Constitution says: "No persons shall be hindered by government in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of expression, which includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his or her correspondence or other means of communication.

Section 12 says: "No persons shall be hindered by government in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of peaceful assembly and association, that is to say, his or her right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties or to form or beling to trade unions or other associations for the protection of his or her interests".

Of course these rights are qualified as they are in any other democratic society.

I have an idea. We can sell all the fridges and windows and sofas and cases of beer and loads of fill and fresh beef and stoves and shingles next election and donate the proceeds to this very worthy cause. I mean, we don't necessarily have to actually VOTE for someone just because they buy us a fridge, right?

Let me ask you this, you are forever lambasting the Constitution, have you ever actually read it? If you have then it is clear that you don't understand it. Section 11 of the Constitution protects freedom of expression or it at least it will when the the relevant sections come into force next year. In the meantime we can rely on our common law rights of freedom of expression. Do you understand that if we had not adopted the new Constitution we would be far worse off under the old one?

However, simply because there is a right in the Constitution does not mean that there is an end to all litigation. There is not a nation on earth more litigious than the United States of America.

The question will be what defenses are available. In the US a public figure must prove a slanderous statement was not a matter of opinion, was likely to be believed, was demonstrably false AND made with malicious intent. The premier's case would have no chance, but it is true that local politicians like sheriffs and mayors in the US still file such suits for the publicity, usually in connection with elections.

The only available defences in this case are (1) Justification, i.e. that the statements are true, and the burden will be on the defendant to show that on a balance of probabilities; or (2) Fair Comment. Fair does not mean reasonable, but signifies the absence of malice. The views expressed can be exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, provided they are honestly held. If the claimant can show that the publication was made maliciously, the defence of fair comment will not succeed.

Of course the irony is that on many occasions statements that would otherwise be actionable as defamation are made in the LA but are covered by absolute privilege.

I am not sure if I am reapeating what others have said verbatum, however I would like to say that CNS has taken a very active role in providing a medium for the disseminating of the new and REALITY of the POLITICAL ATTROCITY that is unfolding before our eyes and within our lives her in the Cayman Islands. CNS has been well aware of the DRAGON we fight and has none-the-less taken that great burden of risk in further setting a TRUE precedence of Freedom of Speech and DEMOCRACY. CNS has been doing this for US, the People of the Cayman Islands and has done so without reluctance and with TRUE VALOR.

With that said, I am of the firmest(or should i say IRON CLAD) belief that WE as "The People"… the posters, commentors and readers and all others, SHOULD STAND UNITED with CNS in this battle against the Dragon… it is OUR battle just the same.

*** And if victorious, we should WAGE ANOTHER BATTLE. That one would be to SEEK TO HAVE McKEEVA REMOVED FROM POWER, from Govt., and from POLITICS INDEFINITELY here in our once hopeful little nation.

I will DEFINITELY be contributing as much as possibly can and again ask that we ALL contribute what we can, whether itis monitary or in any other ways.

I sent in a note making a comment as to why Dan Duquay was being used as it seems this is politicizing this even further XXXXX. I did not mean this in a negative way only bringing to light that the focus may shift on him rather than on the true reason of fight ing for free speech.

Maybe it was interpreted wrongly, screened and discarded…but what about my rights to free speech??

And with the right of Freedom of Speech comes the responsibilty not to abuse that right.

Exercising my right to freedom of speech, I personally hope he wins not because I dont appreciate my rights but because enough is enough. Not everything said is worth saying. People need to know that there are limits on what can and cannot be said about a person in a public forum.

By 'no respect' we take it you mean 'no respect' from either side. In which case we either have a 'real' problem or no problem at all. My parents always taught me that respect always goes two ways. I suppose so does 'no respect', but I would venture to say it is even more important for employees to have respect for their employers than vice versa.

Who made you the judge of what is and what is not abuse of that right of Fredon of Speech?? This is the real world, not just Cayman's world. Do you realize that there are other nations beyond the sea that surrounds this island?

Along your Bottom Line; Respect is not automatic, it is earned. We see the disrespect that he shows to others, women especially, and we realize that he does not deserve the respect that he feels his title provides.

This is a hard lesson but one that most of us learned in school.

If you are in politics you know that there will be those that do not agree with you.

If you think you can sail thru a LIFE of politricks without making enemies you are just as much a naive fool as that buffoon.

You betrayed your bias by your own words. You do not desire justice, you desire revenge. A call for justice would side with whatever side had "clean hands" in the eyes of the law.

In regard to respect, the law does not mandate that I "respect" anyone; it merely sets forth guidelines as to how I might go about showing my disrespect, disdain, and utter loathing for anyone that I consider to be a totally unrespectable ignorant XXXXXXX moronic buffooon.

XXXXX I do have one question though, who is funding the 'premiers' law suit? McWeeeever himself , or the Cayman 'taxpayer'. Are the Caymanian people paying to sue themselves out of the right to free speech? The dictators are falling Cayman, drag him out of the drain pipe and depose him.

If you set up a banner on your site whereby people could contribute via debit or credit card then you will receive a lot more contributions. There are a lot of people all over the world who read this publication, and instead of having to go to a bank and buy a draft, and then mail to you – will find it is much easier to use a secure credit card or debit card payment option.

As another suggestion CNS, would you check with your lawyers to see if it would be helpful if other lawyers were willing to do research pro bono on specific topics around thislitigation? My idea is that if a "Forum" or other "white board" could be constructed, your lawyers could post specific questions that need to be researched and those of us who value freedom of the press and have access to some very good law libraries could do the research and post the replies so that all can see and learn about what press freedom is all about.

Libel litigation is not something most of us do on a daily basis and it is quite technical in some regards but there are those out here who want to help and are quite able to if it would help the cause. Some of us are students, others are working lawyers but are willing to give a few hours as well as money for the cause, and others are retired lawyers who would like to give back.

There are several retired lawyers from the big firms and I am sure that they would be happy to assist although I very doubt if any action will go ahead. Most of Mr Bush's actions are just smoke and mirrors.

I believe this to be a nice idea and could show how all these elements of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the people of the Cayman Islands can work together to fight TRUE EVIL in our Islands.

I want to speak to two things:

1) Supporters of the fund – I call on the following elements of the Cayman society to stand up now and be counted. a) PPM supporters because this is your fight also. You stood strong to bring forth the constitution of this country and now it is under attack. Now is a time to stake a stand. Don't not wait this time do something. b) Freedom supporters it is time you stand up because freedom of information and freedom of the press is under attack and this is your time to shine. Strike this man down or all will be lost.

2) Lawyers for CNS – XXXX This is a precidence case in the Cayman Islands. You are not only just defending CNS but you are defending all media in the Cayman Islands. This will give your firm some serious recognition because you are taking on the most known figure in the Cayman Islands. XXXX

We lived for many many years in the "DARK HOLES OF CALCUTTA" . The "Talk Shows" and other medias have given us the Freedom of Speech to express what's on our minds. The Late Seales took some hard knocks in his times so "WHAT I SEE HAPPENING NOW" is a repeat of "Cayman's History". L ET US ALL STAY STRONG, AND FIGHT FOR OUR DEMOCRACY, that will take Caymanians down "FREEDOM STREET". God Bless the Cayman Islands.

about three hundred people have shown their solidarity with CNS, I think the other press should stand up too. Tommorrow we might need a media defence too. Now if I was Mc I would withdraw because in the process of raising money CNS might prove to be bigger than UDP. I remember how Aquino was shot when coming from the airport back at home, Cory rose and started to haunt Fidel Marcos, today it is Benigno. You see Fidel Marcos was just executing one of the many ploys at his arsenal. Today nobody even remembers Imelda Marcos, Yet Aquino's wife and son have now ruled that country. Is Big Mac reading this?

"What a world it would be, if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion. Mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race: posterity as well as the existing generations—those who differ from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: If wrong they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelierimpression of truth, produced by its collision with error!"

I suspect that most readers might never imagine that the above was written by a certain well known Caymanian politician in a 1983 article.

Notwithstanding that credit apparently not having been given it appears to be a fine example of plagiarism from "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill, those words are no less a force of profoundness although perhaps not on the memory of everyone.

On the other hand, credit was given in referencing the first sentence of Chapter two of "On Liberty" in the same article:

"The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press" as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government."

One might hope this is not a case of 1859 rhetoric meets 2011 reality.

I will be contributing to the defense fund for CNS. I hope that many more do so as well.

No disrespect 23:53 but you need to remove your blinders if you can. As far af most of us can understand the crime is being comitted by the same person instigating this lawsuit by refusing our rights to freedom of expression against we the people of the Cayman Islands. I assure you that this is a serious matter that YOU should investigate yourself in order to one day protect your own rights. A friend of the people.

CNS is a very important and valuable asset to the community. It is an important and stalwart champion of freedom of speech, something The Macaroon loathes and is trying to throttle. It would be a very dangerous blow to our personal freedom as Caymanians if CNS were silenced.

In other words: I plan to put my money where my mouth is. I only wish the former were as plentious as the latter. I can think of few causes more worthy of financial support and hope others here feel the same way.

I hope everyone who voted for the Premier now realizes that he doesn't want "freedom of speech". Everything said or written was an opinion and everyone is allowed their OWN OPINION!!!! With the Premier suing everyone this shows what is running our country. Come on people step up and support CNS for I certainly am!!!!! If non of it is true why is he so worried???? LOL

Dear CNS, thank you for taking a stand to protect freedom of press of our country. Most of the time we take the freedom of press for granted and we will all feel it if that freedom is taken away by a dictator one of these days. So, we all should contribute for this worthy cause.

To everyone asking for accounts to be set up all over the place its really not going to be that easy, remember Nicky's in the Brac and I'm sure there will be a lot of paperwork and form filling to open new accounts anywhere, plus costs, plus more work for Dan.

You can pay money to CNB from your b/field account anyway, its called a local transfer (or something like that), I use it to pay my rent.

Is it possible for Mr. Duguay to publish updates on the total amount of money received, as well as a separate list of individuals who feel compelled to have their names associated with this worthy cause?

I believe it is important for us to know how much more you might need, as well as the Premier should know how many are willing to stand up to defend freedom of the press.

While it is not important for my name to be on this here post, nor is it important to know the exact amount given by any one individual, but when the time is ripe I want the Premier to see the name of at least one Civil Servant from whom he took 3.2% of his salary to give to a church.

Heritage preservation is very important to any culture, HOWEVER I do believe Government was taken for a very expensive ride by various parties involved in the purchase of Lassie's property. It should not take CI$500,000 to restore a very small traditional building, even if you have to repaint various sections of the house in Lassie style.

I wish I could sign my name but I will be cotributing and very happy to have Mr. Duguay as managing nthe fund and I amk certain that he will provide good amunition as well. Finally we may make a difference here and all started by Mac & Baloney. He will regret this one.A.G.D

Even though I can be "very passionate" on certain issues which results in my posts not being published at times, I do sincerely appreciate and support your organization 100% in it's great efforts of reporting the news and promoting Freedom of Expression/Speech for all in these islands.

Perhaps this will be a "testing case" to lay the foundation for the upcoming 2012 Bill of Rights.

Despite our economic times, I pledge $100.00 CI towards CNS Legal Defence Fund and do hope that many others will do likewise. Whatever amount, please give to this important cause as it supports your personal rights in our society as well.

XXXX I predict that ultimately facilitating anonymous "free speech" or "uncontestable & unsupported" libel and slander might be against the law in most places. Political Blogs and their editors like CNS are highly likely to run into this type of issue, especially if they claim to "review/edit" the posts prior to making them public. Remember Mr. Ellio Solomon's similar fate which took him out of the Blogging business big time and had him in contempt of Grand Court. You might also want to start a "Premier fund" in case this goes against you in court.

All the best but be prepared to have violated something, especially in Cayman where our constitution is really just a "contract with the FCO". The English do not even have to follow if it is "contraryto the UKs interest".

We should not mistake the 'freedom laws' we hear about on USA or UK TV. Not all apply here.

I wish I could give a 1000 thumbs up to this comment. This is the most important point of all. Lets help Nicky defend the free speech rights she and her reporters have to report what they want in the news, becausewe will be defending the same free speech right the churches have to speak about religion, or that the PPM have to say negative things about the UDP and for the UDP to say negative things about the PPM, heck even the same right that Mac has to speak out in the news about his conspiracy theories! You can count on me for a contribution.

I am not sure why the posters below believe that Freedom of Speech is not recognised by ourConstitution or by common law or by the European Convention on Human Rights which has been extended to us. While the Bill of Rights contained in the Constitution is not yet in force, for the most part it simply reflects our pre-existing international obligations and the common law. Section 11 reads:

"No person shall be hindered by government in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of expression, which includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interferance with his or her correspondence or other means of communication".